Reforming Bureaucracy

The
bureaucracy is situated in the same separated system
as the Congress, the Courts and the President. While
it is formally part of the Executive Branch, its size
and power are such that many have termed it the "Fourth
Branch" of the national government. In some ways the
label is appropriate, for it is not entirely under the
direction of the President, the constitutional head of
the Executive Branch. The bureaucracy is not, however,
entirely free from presidential or congressional influence.
Indeed, the President appoints and can remove the top
twenty-percent or so of all Executive Branch employees,
including Department Secretaries. The Congress also wields
significant influence over the bureaucracy through its
ability to set agency and departmental budgets and even
to eliminate bureaucracies altogether (although it rarely
does so). Additionally, the Courts act as an important
check against bureaucratic excesses.

Obstacles to Reform

It
is in the context of the American separated system that
the bureaucracy is called on to administer the laws,
implement the policies and run the programs created by
the Congress and the President. As it does so, it invariably
does things that please some and displease others. There
are constant efforts to "reform" bureaucracy and to change
its objectives. Bringing about such changes, however,
has proven difficult for Presidents and members of Congress
alike. Public policy making in European parliamentary
systems has been likened to a prize fight, where two
challengers face off and the winner gets to set policies.
The American system, however, is more like a barroom
brawl in which "anybody can join in, the combatants fight
all comers and sometimes change sides, no referee is
in charge, and the fights last not for a fixed number
of rounds but indefinitely or until everybody drops from
exhaustion."1

Accountability

One
of the most difficult challenges faced by reformers is
establishing accountability for the observable outcomes
of public policies and programs. (There are even sometimes
significant disagreements about how to measure those
outcomes.) If a program has failed, is it the fault of
the bureaucracy? Or was the program the Congress and
the President created fundamentally flawed to begin with?
Perhaps the nature of the problem changed so drastically
that the original program or policy is no longer effective--maybe
no one is responsible. Even if the responsibility for
a program's failure can be attributed to a particular
department or agency, who within that department or agency
should be held accountable? Should it be a departmental
Secretary? An Under Secretary? Or are the rank-and-file
employees at the department or agency to blame?

"The Buck Stops Here!"
This sign sat on President Truman's desk in the Oval
Office. In his Farewell Address, he declared: "The
President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass
the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding
for him. That's his job."

While
Harry Truman was famous for declaring that the "buck" stopped
at his desk, not all Presidents have been so willing
to accept ultimate accountability for the actions of
the bureaucracy. On the contrary, Presidents before and
after Truman, as well as members of Congress, have regularly
blamed the bureaucracy for policy failures. Congressional
committees frequently compel department and agency heads
to appear before them to explain why this or that program
has not succeeded. Although popular among politicians,
bureaucracy-bashing is generally counter-productive and
does little to actually improve government administration.2

Competing goals of reformers

Another
obstacle to bureaucratic reform is that members of Congress
and Presidents often disagree about what it is that needs
reforming. As has been noted, American bureaucracy is
often pulled in opposite directions by the often contradictory
goals of independent and expert administration on the
one hand and public accountability and responsiveness
on the other. A reformer who wants to make the administration
of a program more scientific and professional will probably
not want the extensive public review and input that a
supporter of more accountability might want.

Political tenure versus bureaucratic tenure

Efforts
to reform the bureaucracy or significantly redefine its
mission often fail because the people initiating the
reforms, elected and appointed political leaders in the
Executive Branch, serve an average of two and a half
years while career bureaucrats generally serve more than
twenty years. Careerists in departments and agencies
might be politically, professionally or ideologically
opposed to the attempts at reform and may simply wait
them out, going along with them only enough to avoid
serious conflict but not energetically enough to make
them work. Other bureaucrats might simply be tired of
repeated reform efforts made by successive Presidents.
Believing that whatever changes are made by one President
will be undone by the next, a careerist might similarly
be less than enthusiastic about implementing mandates
for reform.

Attempts at Bureaucratic Reform

Policy
makers have made numerous efforts to reform the bureaucracy
to make it more cost effective, less redundant, more
competent, more accountable and to accomplish a variety
of other objectives. Some of the more prominent past
and present reform efforts include:

Bureaucratic Reorganization

By
realigning or restructuring departments, agencies and
their responsibilities, Presidents and members of Congress
have sought to contain costs, reduce bureaucratic overlap
and improve accountability. Reorganization is, as one
political scientist calls it, the "cod liver oil of government--an
all purpose cure for whatever ails the body politic."3 Reorganization
efforts, however, have generally not saved the money
they have promised. They are, though, a significant catalyst
of bureaucratic change and invigoration.4

Deregulation and Privatization

Among
the more popular reform proposals today is the privatization
of bureaucracy and the deregulation of industry. The
premise behind these proposals is that "most people do
not like working in an environment in which every action
is second-guessed, every initiative viewed with suspicion,
and every controversial decision denounced as malfeasance."5 Although
this account of bureaucracy is, one would hope, an exaggeration
of the working conditions within Executive Branch departments
and agencies, interjecting the profit motive and easing
many of the complex rules that guide bureaucratic behavior
is perceived by many as the "answer" to the problems
of governmental administration. However, with such reforms
would come serious trade-offs, primarily in the form
of lost accountability and control over the bureaucracy.

Devolution

Another
approach to reform that has gained popularity, especially
among Republicans in Congress and most state governors,
is "devolution," the transferring of national government
resources and authority for the administration of programs
away from national-level bureaucracies to the states.
The most significant example of devolution in recent
memory is the transfer of most federal welfare programs
to the states in 1996. While it is difficult to make
final judgments about the success of this reform effort,
early indications are that it has been successful in
moving people from welfare to work. The drawback to devolution,
however, is that the services provided and policies implemented
will be uneven across states. With unevenness, there
is the potential for inequities. Proponents of devolution
are quick to point out, though, that unevenness may also
be a sign that each state has adapted programs and policies
to its particular needs.

The National Performance Review

One
of the most ambitious, and, by many accounts,
most successful attempts to reform and reshape the bureaucracy
was Vice President Al Gore's National Performance
Review (NPR).
The stated goals of the NPR were to:

Cut "red tape & rules" by half

Establish "Customer
Service" standards for every department, agency and
bureau

Give
bureaucrats at the "street-level," where they interact
with the people, more discretion to respond to particular
needs and circumstances

Eliminate
waste, overlap and duplication

Despite
its focus on changing the bureaucratic culture of government
administration, the first NPR Report was a stereotypically "bureaucratic" document.
It was too-long and too technical and was largely ignored.
In contrast, the second report, the cover of which is pictured
on the right, was short, easy to read and filled with Dilbert
cartoons. The second report is symbolic of the ways the bureaucracy
has changed and is continuing to change. There is a heightened
sense of accountability to the people, the "customers" of each
agency and department. And there is a greater willingness to
engage in critical self-evaluation and change. As the cartoons
suggest, the bureaucracy might even be learning to laugh at
itself a bit. For an update on the National Performance Review
and its successes, you can visit the NPR
web site.

With George W. Bush's victory in 2000, the NPR
was disbanded in favor of other reform efforts. But the NPR's
impact has outlasted its existence as a formal bureaucratic
reform initiative.

Keys to Reform

Given
the significant obstacles to bureaucratic reform, several
important observations can be made. First, if reforms
are to occur, they are unlikely to occur rapidly. Reformers
must be willing to work at implementing their proposed
reforms over several years. Second, a clear set of goals
must be articulated and promising new solutions must
be identified. A plan that simply replaces old inefficiencies
with new ones is unlikely to win broad support. Finally,
reformers must work to build consensus across and within
the Legislative and Executive branches. For the reforms
to work, they must have broad political support.